MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003579727 · doi:10.1139/x00-150

Responses of quaking aspen (<i>Populus tremuloides</i>) seedlings to solution calcium

2001· article· en· W2003579727 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erh-Yang Lu, Edward Sucoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSeedling growth and survival studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShootElongationSalicaceaeBotanyCalciumBiomass (ecology)Plant physiologyNutrientChemistryHorticultureDry weightBiologyWoody plantAgronomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides Michx.) seedlings were grown in nutrient solutions to investigate their responses to a range of solution Ca levels (10-1000 µM) similar to those found in aspen stands of upper Lakes States. Growth increased significantly with increasing level of solution Ca. The level of solution Ca associated with 90% of maximum elongation (critical level) was 61 µM for shoots and 88 µM for roots. Critical Ca levels for biomass probably were lower. Concentrations of Ca in leaves and roots increased significantly with increasing solution Ca. Elongation of shoots and roots was also strongly and positively related to Ca concentrations in leaves and roots. Critical Ca concentrations (oven-dry mass) for shoot elongation were 0.46% in leaf tissue and 0.12% in root tissue, while critical Ca concentrations for root elongation were 0.54% in leaf tissue and 0.13% in root tissue. Solution Ca may have induced deficiencies of other elements, but direct Ca deficiency was the primary cause of growth reduction. These critical Ca levels in solutions or tissues cannot be used to diagnose Ca deficiency in aspen forests until it is known how other soil and plant factors affect the Ca requirement of aspen.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.249 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicSeedling growth and survival studiesFrench-language works237,207